Hold-It-Out Probability Check
Create emotional distance, compare outcomes, then reduce the largest risk
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 91%
Stephen Bartlett describes mentally holding a crisis in front of him rather than allowing it to consume him. That distance lets him distinguish personal distress from responsibility for solving the problem. He then compares the probability and scale of harm under different responses and looks for a mitigation that lowers the dominant risk. His password-exposure anecdote illustrates the sequence, but its numerical estimates were informal and his suggestion to avoid direct disclosure may be inappropriate where clients, contracts, or law require notification. The reusable framework is therefore the structure, not that conclusion: create distance, map outcomes, estimate uncertainty honestly, check duties, and reduce risk. Probability thinking supports responsibility; it does not override evidence, consent, or compliance.
Origin
Bartlett describes this approach on The Diary of a CEO while discussing a hacked server and a friend's possible password exposure.
Core principles
- 01A problem is easier to assess when it is separated from identity
- 02Strong emotion can narrow the perceived choice set
- 03Each available action carries its own harms
- 04Mitigation should reduce risk without ignoring obligations
How to run it
- 1
Hold the problem outside
Describe the incident as something you must handle, not as a verdict on who you are or whether you will survive it.
Pro tip Write the facts in neutral language before choosing a response.
Watch out Emotional distance must not become denial.
- 2
Map the outcomes
List the plausible harms under action, inaction, and any alternative response.
Pro tip Include secondary harms created by the response itself.
- 3
Estimate uncertainty
Assign rough likelihood and severity ranges using the evidence available, clearly marking guesses as guesses.
Pro tip Use ranges when a precise percentage would be false confidence.
Watch out Do not invent reassuring numbers.
- 4
Check your duties
Identify any legal, contractual, safety, or ethical obligation that constrains the available choices.
Pro tip Ask a qualified adviser when notification duties are unclear.
Watch out A lower estimated reputational risk does not cancel a disclosure requirement.
- 5
Reduce the dominant risk
Choose the proportionate action that best reduces expected harm while satisfying the relevant duties.
Pro tip Add reversible safeguards while gathering better information.
In the wild
Bartlett advised a friend to compare the harm of misuse with the harm of alarming every client, then recommend two-factor authentication. A safer application would preserve the mitigation while also checking whether password resets, investigation, or direct notification are legally or contractually required.
→ The response becomes a documented risk decision rather than an emotional reflex, without treating Bartlett's informal percentages as evidence.
Common mistakes
Using made-up precision
Bartlett's percentages were conversational estimates; presenting them as measured probabilities would overstate the transcript.
Ignoring disclosure duties
Risk comparison cannot justify concealing an incident when affected parties or authorities must be informed.
Is it for you?
Best for
Leaders handling urgent but survivable operational problems where several responses are available.
Not ideal for
Emergencies demanding immediate protective action or regulated incidents requiring prescribed disclosure.
From the transcript
“hold it out in front of them and deal with it there”
“make your decisions based on probabilities of the outcome”
From the episode
Lessons From 50 Of The Worlds Greatest Minds with Jake Humphrey